Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes in relation to the computation of capital gains arising from the transfer of "possession rights" over a property. The assessee contended that the "possession rights" constituted a "capital asset" and the transfer of such rights was liable to capital gains tax. However, the ITAT observed that the assessee failed to furnish crucial documents supporting the acquisition of such "possession rights" through a family settlement agreement in 2004. The ITAT noted discrepancies in the assessee's computation of the "cost of acquisition" of the "possession rights." The assessee had computed the cost based on the registered valuer's report valuing the property as of 01.04.1981, despite not having ownership rights over the property. The ITAT found it unclear why the assessee computed the cost of acquisition based on ownership rights when the assessee had acquired only "possession rights" through a family arrangement without incurring any cost. While acknowledging that the "right of possession" qualifies as a capital asset, the ITAT held that the assessee failed to substantiate the date of acquisition of such rights (the 2004 family arrangement) and the basis for computing the cost of acquisition at Rs. 43,73,026. Consequently, the ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purpose.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes in relation to the computation of capital gains arising from the transfer of "possession rights" over a property. The assessee contended that the "possession rights" constituted a "capital asset" and the transfer of such rights was liable to capital gains tax. However, the ITAT observed that the assessee failed to furnish crucial documents supporting the acquisition of such "possession rights" through a family settlement agreement in 2004. The ITAT noted discrepancies in the assessee's computation of the "cost of acquisition" of the "possession rights." The assessee had computed the cost based on the registered valuer's report valuing the property as of 01.04.1981, despite not having ownership rights over the property. The ITAT found it unclear why the assessee computed the cost of acquisition based on ownership rights when the assessee had acquired only "possession rights" through a family arrangement without incurring any cost. While acknowledging that the "right of possession" qualifies as a capital asset, the ITAT held that the assessee failed to substantiate the date of acquisition of such rights (the 2004 family arrangement) and the basis for computing the cost of acquisition at Rs. 43,73,026. Consequently, the ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purpose.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
